Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The IPv6 Transition

potaroo.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 433 posts

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#331

Post by cyberax »

elcritch wrote: post #232
cyberax wrote: post #175

IPv6 is _still_ not at the feature parity with IPv4! I'm not kidding. For example, Android doesn't support stateful DHCPv6. And DHCPv6 doesn't have the _basic_ feature of DHCPv4: hostnames. You can't easily use it to do a quick survey of your network. Then you have that @#& (^( &!@^ that is ULA. With IPv4 we have a very useful pattern: you create an "internal" network that is stable and predictable. It's routed to th…

> dhcpv6 Just skip DHCPV6, just use SLAAC. Plus I've never seen DHCP hostnames work. Now I just ping ff02::1 multicast to see what devices are on my network. Unfortunately much software makes it a pain to use link-local addresses but they're really convenient as they normally don't change across networks. > Half of the hosts don't implement prefix withdrawal, and keep both their ULAs and the normal addresses. Congrat…

> Now I just ping ff02::1 multicast to see what devices are on my network.

Yeah, you see a bunch of MACs and... what next? How do you get the names?

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#332

Post by cyberax »

tucnak wrote: post #314
cyberax wrote: post #175

IPv6 is _still_ not at the feature parity with IPv4! I'm not kidding. For example, Android doesn't support stateful DHCPv6. And DHCPv6 doesn't have the _basic_ feature of DHCPv4: hostnames. You can't easily use it to do a quick survey of your network. Then you have that @#& (^( &!@^ that is ULA. With IPv4 we have a very useful pattern: you create an "internal" network that is stable and predictable. It's routed to th…

You know that dhcpv6 servers like odhcpd (Openwrt) implement hairpin NAT along with IPv6-PD right?

How would it help? The LAN traffic between hosts in that LAN does not go through the router.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#333

Post by cyberax »

thayne wrote: post #92
AStonesThrow wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The truth is that major cloud providers such as Amazon AWS have begun to charge [more] for static, routed IPv4 addresses. Last I checked (a few years ago, I suppose), AWS APIs were incapable of using IPv6 internally, so a VPC still needed to dual-stack it in order to use AWS cloud features. That may have changed by now.

Yep, lots of AWS apis don't work over ipv6, and many require making requests outside the VPC, so you need to have at least one ipv4 address for a NAT.

You can use NAT64, it works with all the AWS services. Although it's pretty stupid that services like ECR don't have IPv6.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#334

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

elcritch wrote: post #232
cyberax wrote: post #175

IPv6 is _still_ not at the feature parity with IPv4! I'm not kidding. For example, Android doesn't support stateful DHCPv6. And DHCPv6 doesn't have the _basic_ feature of DHCPv4: hostnames. You can't easily use it to do a quick survey of your network. Then you have that @#& (^( &!@^ that is ULA. With IPv4 we have a very useful pattern: you create an "internal" network that is stable and predictable. It's routed to th…

> dhcpv6 Just skip DHCPV6, just use SLAAC. Plus I've never seen DHCP hostnames work. Now I just ping ff02::1 multicast to see what devices are on my network. Unfortunately much software makes it a pain to use link-local addresses but they're really convenient as they normally don't change across networks. > Half of the hosts don't implement prefix withdrawal, and keep both their ULAs and the normal addresses. Congrat…

> Now I just ping ff02::1 multicast to see what devices are on my network. Unfortunately much software makes it a pain to use link-local addresses but they're really convenient as they normally don't change across networks.

How does that help? I don't want a list of IPs, I want to reach my devices by name (which DHCP makes easy).

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#335

Post by cyberax »

exabrial wrote: post #290
hairyplanter wrote: post #10

I have fully implemented IPv6 in my home network. I have even implemented an IPv6-Only network. It fully works, including accessing IPv4 only websites like github.com via DNS64 and NAT64 at my router. The only practically useful thing about my IPv6 enabled network is that I can run globally routable services on my lan, without NAT port mapping. Of course, only if the client is also IPv6. Other than this one use case,…

To give ipv6 some credit, there are some very useful things like flow labels. But I agree completely with the rest of your sentiment. IPv4 is "good enough", but we could do some things to extend its usage further. First, adopt service location in DNS, and being to retire it at the TCP port-number layer. Then we could run more than one website per ip address, and this would significantly increase resilience against ce…

> To give ipv6 some credit, there are some very useful things like flow labels.

They are not useful, as you can't depend on them.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#336

Post by ktosobcy »

spacebanana7 wrote: post #288
ktosobcy wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so for anyone that "just browses the web" (which is overwhelming majority) there is virtually no difference/benefit? I don't play online games, don't use VPN, have a couple of services on my local RPi that has port forwarded on router and that's it... ipv6 could be handy when testing some service on my laptop and trying with external services but this happens so rarely that it's not an issue... on the flipside, whene…

> so for anyone that "just browses the web" (which is overwhelming majority) there is virtually no difference/benefit? Our current patterns of internet behaviour are limited by IPv4, so almost by construction nobody does things that need IPv6. Few people made international journeys before deep water navigation; watched live streams before Twitch; or had pizza delivered at 4am before dominos.

Could you give examples?

One, the most obvious, is actually having distributed net and serving content from your own machine and in the ancient times like 15 years ago Opera tried that by bundling sort of local http-server (?!, can't even remember the name of the project…) but it floped... I'm not sure that ipv4 was the issue or rather the fact that people don't usually have or want their machine work 24/7...

for calls we have to rely on STUN/TURN but than again some consider this a feature as it hides external IP... which with ipv6 would be even more privacy invading?

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#337

Post by NelsonMinar »

iam-TJ wrote: post #264
NelsonMinar wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink uses CGNAT. It's awful, I'm regularly getting CAPTCHAs on random websites. They now support IPv6 but only with dynamic address allocations so you don't get a lot of advantages from it.

I've been using Starlink since early 2021 with IPv6 only internally. Starlink User Terminal hands out a /56 prefix (via DHCPv6) and mine has not changed in all that time so I wouldn't call it dynamic. The User Terminal issues a router advertisement (RA) and my gateway gives itself an address in that /64 via SLAAC in addition to assigning itself an address from the /56 prefix. If not using prefix delegation each host'…

Thanks for the report with success with IPv6 and Starlink. Do you make inbound connections to devices on your LAN? Do they work?

Starlink recently updated their FAQ with more info on addressing: https://www.starlink.com/support/article/1192f3ef-2a17-31d9-...

As for static addresses, it says "a reservation system retains the ... IPv6 prefix even when the system is off or rebooted. However, relocating the Starlink or software updates may change these addresses."

I suspect in practice the IPv6 address will only change if you get moved to a different POP ground station. Some customers never get moved. I've been moved several times because I'm in NorCal and they keep switching me between Seattle and Los Angeles.

Here's some recent discussion of users reporting what they've observed about changing IPv6 addresses: https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/1b6mr4c/how_stati...

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#338

Post by NelsonMinar »

alwayslikethis wrote: post #167
imoverclocked wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hadn’t put that quite together. I wonder how many people would value IPv6 if they knew it meant less CAPTCHAs.

I'd imagine that to be short lived. IPv6 having such a huge address spaces means the IP reputations are even more worthless than IPv4 so eventually the bots would use it too, and if the ratio of bots to real users become too high sites may refuse IPv6 traffic altogether.

Ooof that's an ugly thought. But I think "refuse IPv6 traffic altogether" is not possible for any consumer site. Per the article, there's 40% adoption of IPv6 now and it's only growing. Major parts of the world rely on IPv6 working right. I guess sites could go IPv4-only but given how many other problems there are with IP reputations, that'd be awfully dumb.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#339

Post by dpkirchner »

pie_flavor wrote: post #180

I have IPv6 disabled on my computer because it solves many mysterious service interruptions. Comcast claims to support it, but there have been many times when IPv6 was dog slow and IPv4 was very fast.

Comcast used to issue me an IPv6 block but silently stopped at some point. Others reported the same problem. Thankfully everything I use still supports IPv4 so I didn't notice until I went looking.

One day it'll be worth my time to figure out the problem, but I predict that day is far in the future.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#340

Post by NelsonMinar »

azalemeth wrote: post #218
NelsonMinar wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CAPTCHAs are the main reason I turned IPv6 on. No idea if it will actually help in practice, it's hard to measure. The other Starlink hassle is the geocoding for user IPv4 addresses is wildly wrong. I'm in Grass Valley, CA near Sacramento but sites all think my IP is either in Seattle or Los Angeles, depending on the week. This makes streaming services a huge PITA, I have to jump through hoops to convince them I'm in…

Or, as an alternative, we try to convince people that geoIP lookups are at best uncertain and at worst actively misleading -- and perhaps shouldn't be taken at face value. I personally think this would be a great thing. For paid services that allegedly need to know where you are geographically located, use your billing address. For advertisers it's one less bit of useful information...

I agree! Now please convince Youtube TV, Hulu, and friends.

YTTV at least will prefer your phone's geolocation to the IP address, that's how I "check in" to my metro every couple of months.

Post reply on HN